Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
100 years is a long time. But look at London, England. It has been the biggest city in Great Britain for centuries. There is no reason to believe NYC won’t do the same.
100 years is so far from now that it is hard to even speculate. Some crazy climate crisis or global conflict could easily lead to another city catching NY population wise.
City limits I don't see (unless it's something like a city county consolidation) but metro? Come on.
In a 100 years there could be a dozen metros bigger than New York.
In 1900 St Louis was the 4th biggest city in the US.
Charleston, Baltimore, New Orleans... were all top 5 cities at one point.
LA was only 500k a hundred years ago and was smaller than Pittsburgh.
Yes for most of census history New York has been on top and is likely to stay that way by city, but saying LA is the only one in the convo by metro is really short-sighted. Especially since metros can physically increase or decrease in the whim of the OMB.
I agree. To only use a city proper as the metric is short-sided. The entire metropolitan area has to be considered as it is a part of the economy.
St. Louis proper doesn't rank in the top 50 cities in population, ranking 69th in population. Conversely, El Paso is ranked 23rd. However, when considering the metropolitan areas as a whole, St. Louis weighs in at 20 in MSA population. El Paso, on the other hand, doesn't rank, and is lower than Buffalo. Living right next to El Paso, that's going to change in the next 100 years, big time. There will be many more residents.
Bottom line, if you look at census figures, the gainers are in the sunbelt. People don't want to shovel snow and scrape ice off their cars.
City limits I don't see (unless it's something like a city county consolidation) but metro? Come on.
In a 100 years there could be a dozen metros bigger than New York.
In 1900 St Louis was the 4th biggest city in the US.
Charleston, Baltimore, New Orleans... were all top 5 cities at one point.
LA was only 500k a hundred years ago and was smaller than Pittsburgh.
Yes for most of census history New York has been on top and is likely to stay that way by city, but saying LA is the only one in the convo by metro is really short-sighted. Especially since metros can physically increase or decrease in the whim of the OMB.
One thing to take into account is the US went from 76 million to 300 million in a hundred years. The US might reach 400 million in 2120. Way less growth would have to do way more work.
Plus if the top 5, 3 were in the top 5 in 1900 (NYC, Philly, Chicago).
A lot will depend not only on the growth of other cities but also on the shrinkage of NYC. We already see this with Chicago were there are many fast growing cities that are vying for Chicago's #3 spot. The other cities are growing their way into big city status while Chicago continues to shrink.
Of course what you consider a "metro" makes a big difference. In 60 years Dallas maybe at nearly 20 million but spread over a monstrous sq area. In terms of population and a similar form of urbanity, I think Toronto is actually the only city that could reach NYC. Pre-pandemic, greater Toronto was growing at 160,000/year. The broader area {known as the Golden Horseshoe} is already at 10 million and growing by 220,000/year. So maybe in 50 or 60 years.........
Riverside is functionally part of greater LA so in reality it's a 17 million metro, not 13. Greater LA feels no smaller than the Tri-State area and ironically is more urban than NYC's despite the city proper's being polar opposites.
You are talking to an urban planner whose favorite cities include Boston, Chicago, Seattle and the Hudson-Bergen Towns. Im with you 100%
Oh yeah? Awesome field. My degree is Regional Development and Urban Planning as well. I didn't go into it however, but love following it and reading trends.
But yeah, Boston is one of my US favorites, as is NYC of course, and DC, Chicago to a lesser degree.
LA is nearly as big these days. It could easily (if slowly) pass NY in our lifetimes. I'm including Riverside of course.
100 years is a long time. We don't know what'll happen in 20 years let alone 80. NY could hit major headwinds with climate change and other factors we can only guess at.
That said, any city would face huge pressures as it grows. And assuming more moderate world population increases, a city would need to dominate a lot of things to get to NY's level.
Riverside is functionally part of greater LA so in reality it's a 17 million metro, not 13. Greater LA feels no smaller than the Tri-State area and ironically is more urban than NYC's despite the city proper's being polar opposites.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
